Still in its nascent stages, the Kenya National Social Protection Plan is an ambitious government project that proposes far-reaching policies and actions for the poor and vulnerable that will enhance their capacity to cope with poverty and equip them to better manage risks and shocks. The process begun in early 2007.

It refers to policies and actions for the poor and vulnerable which enhance their capacity to cope with poverty, and equips them to better manage risks and shocks.

The Kenya Vision 2030 aims to provide a high quality of life for all its citizens in just over two decades.  It is structured on three pillars – economic, social and political – yet it acknowledges that in order for the social pillar to succeed, a well coordinated social protection system must be in place. 

However, immediate concerns centre on the issue of cost and implementation. Government, development partners, civil society organizations (CSOs) and members of the public who have participated at several stakeholder consultations are in agreement that the investment costs are high. 

Critics say that a social protection plan for Kenya would amount to an intervention in perpetuity with no end in sight.  The fear is that recipients would be reluctant to graduate to a state of self-reliance and entrepreneurship if they became too comfortable with the regular cash transfers envisaged. 

However, government, development partners and some CSOs give the counter argument that social protection and in particular the cash transfers to beneficiaries do not amount to a pension. 

They argue that the presence of protective mechanisms enables governments to take more high-risk return activities at the national level.  With higher growth rates, it is possible for government to sustain a social protection plan for its most vulnerable citizens. 

The cash transfers are computed to be low enough but not too high to make it comfortable for the recipients to get into a cycle of dependence that perpetuates their state of poverty. 

Rather the intervention offers a lifeline to recipients who would otherwise have fallen through the cracks due to the vulnerability of their situation.  They include the aged, persons living with HIV/AIDS, persons with disability and children in especially difficult circumstances, as in the case of orphans – who ordinarily would not have a sustainable livelihood or source of income. 

Some of the benefits and development impacts envisaged at the at the micro-level through livelihood interventions include better human capital buffered by health and education that will improve households’ ability to break out of the poverty cycle. 

Research proves that critical social services release households to engage in productive activities.  For instance, instead of fetching water, children’s time is frees to enable them attend school while the adults in the household are freed to invest in trade and activities that support livelihoods. 

Another positive impact at the micro-level is that cash transfers will increase the spending power of households, stimulating local markets in the process and releasing poor individuals to take greater risks in seeking employment. 

At the macro-level it is envisaged that increased human capital will lead to higher rates of economic growth. In addition, social protection reduces inequality and promotes national stability and a conducive environment for domestic and foreign investment.